Juvenile interviews in school and Miranda issues

I am not an SRO but I work closely with them and operate in all the schools on a semi-regular basis due to the nature of my duties.

I ran into a “new” situation the other day with the prosecutor assigned to Juvie cases.

This is the scenario:

A 13 year old middle school commits a class one misdemeanor (Meaning a misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months in jail and/or a $2500.00 fine as designated by the Code of Virginia)

There is video footage of the kid in the general area (but not immediate area) where the act took place. The kid is identified by school staff and the SRO (A city police officer permanently assigned to the schools) goes to get him in the cafeteria to take him to the principal’s office. Pretty much the video only established that the kid is out of place since he is supposed to be going to a class on the third floor when the events took place and he is seen by the gym in the sub-basement of the school. On the way back from the cafeteria, the SRO asks the kid one question about where his jacket was. The kid answers that he does not have a jacket.

The kid is brought to the ante-room, a sort of small lobby in front of the principal’s office. The lobby serves three offices, including those of the principal and SRO. There is a table and a few chairs in that lobby. The entrance of the lobby is opened to the main hallway. There are no doors.

When I get there, the kid is seated at the table, with the SRO near him. School staff is entering and leaving the lobby. I go into the principal’s office, followed by the SRO and they fill me in and show me the video. I get the kid’s info from the Principal.

We go back out into the lobby where the kid is waiting at the table. The principal, the SRO and I sit at the table. The principal starts to question the kid about the events, the kid lies a little, the principal takes the kid into her office, shows him the video and comes back out with him, they resume sitting at the table. The principal keeps interviewing the kid who then admits to having a jacket and that a friend is holding it for him. The SRO asks the kid why he lied to her about having a jacket, to which he answers that he knew that the jacket would help identify him. The principal resumes her questioning and the kid confesses. The principal asks him to provide a written statement, to which he agrees. I hand a statement form to the principal who then gives it to the kid for him to complete.

Up until that point, I have not spoken to the kid other than to introduce myself and explain why I was there. After the kid signs the statement, I called juvenile intake to notify them of the impending arrest. They (of course) recommend I release the child to his mother after processing. I then called his mother and explained that her child was going to be arrested and processed, I explained the nature of the charges, and that she needed to come to Police headquarters to pick up her champion son.

After the kid is fingerprinted and entered into the system. I speak to him and the mother together in the lobby of the police headquarters. I explained the seriousness of the offense, the consequences etc. Up to that point, I still have not asked one single question of the child. Let’s also clarify that at no time did I or the SRO ask the principal to ask the kid any questions or do anything.

A few days before the trial, I get a call from the prosecutor telling me that there are serious issues with the case, that he is not sure that he will obtain a conviction etc . etc….the reason being, I did not mirandize the kid…

Now, I tell the prosecutor that I did not question the kid and that he was not in custody, therefore there was no need for me to mirandize him. The prosecutor continues on by saying that he’s run into trouble in juvenile court over that I repeat to her that NO questions and NO custody = no Miranda; that the questions were all asked by the principal on her own initiative. The SRO and I were only witnessing the statements made by the kid to the principal, The prosecutor adds that the mere presence of police officers there is enough to warrant Miranda.

The case goes to court; the defense tries to get the statements of the kid thrown out, which fails miserably. The kid is found guilty.

Have you run into similar situations where prosecutors have advised you that kids need to be Mirandized in school even if not in custody and not being questioned by LEOS or by staff acting at the request of LEOs?

I am a certified SRO. If the principal was interviewing the kid, neither you, nor the SRO should have been anywhere near it. The SRO bringing him to the principal, and you all sitting down together looks a lot like custody. I'm glad the case went through, and he was found guilty. But I'm surprised that it didn't get tossed. In Montana a police officer cannot interview a suspect that is a minor without parental consent unless the minor is over 16. Since you were there for interview, I would consider the prinicpal your agent. But, obviously the court disagreed. Also, you fingerprint juveniles? Also a big no-no in Montana. Maybe our laws concerning minors is more liberal.

I agree with Schultzy. Custody is in the eyes of the beholder. Being surrounded by cops while the principal asks questions looks like a custodial question to me. Was the child free to leave?? I suspect not, so yea miranda would apply. Like Schultzy at thirteen I can't interview without a parent or lawyer present.

As far as I was concerned, the kid was free to leave the area where he was, albeit not the school per school board rules.

In Virginia, school officials are considered to be the children's parents while in school pursuant to the "In loco parentis" doctrine. Parental consent is not required for interviews. The parents are required to be notified when charges are filed or about to be filed.

The law in Virgina concerning juveniles changed a little over a year ago, all juveniles charged with arrestable offenses are to be fingerprinted. The fingerprinting is not done at the regular booking facility but at the police headquarters in the CSI office where they have all the equipment to do that, away from any adult defendants.

Thanks for your input.

I will take all of this under advisement and discuss it with the SROs so we can avoid this type of situation in the future.

He was in custody as the others stated. In my area the parents or an attoney had to be present to interview a juvenile. I would release to the parents and forward the paper work to the juvenile officers and let them handle. The good thing in your situation is there was a conviction and learned a few things to assist in the future.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

Hello my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.

"It's not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk." Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy -December 4, 2000

This topic is a good one with a wise consensus. I've seen this play out in here - high-profile case here - officer shot to death - "two stage confession." Police had to go back, mirandize and obtain second confession. It was touch and go for awhile.

Maybe this pivots around status/maturity of judgment. Has he the maturity/perception that he may be free to go under the circumstances during which he is being interviewed? Is the juvenile mature enough to know his right to ask and thus discern whether or not he is in custody? Should society require that level of maturity from a juvenile? If so...under which conditions might it not? The better part of wisdom is to be conservative, I think.

The last thing the LEO wants to see is the poisoned tree bearing fruit.

Ditto to 9877's input on in loco parentis. It may be the reason the juvenile's confession was allowed.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

DITTO on "loco parentis"........ If I know that I will be making the arrest and will either issue the citation or lodge into juvenile hall, I (we) always advise the offender of his/her Miranda Rights and have the juvenile (and sometimes adult) offender sign a Miranda Advisement form. The box is checked that the offender either agrees or declines to make a statement to me about the offence. Regardless of his answer, if he makes any statements to the school administrator in my presence, it is fair game and admissible as a voluntary statement. I didn't ask the question(s) and the offender voluntarily answered the question of the administrator or made the statement in my presence.

On a side note but definitely related (in California anyways / don't know about other states) we also ask questions to those 13 and younger pursuant to "Gladys R" to indicate that they knew or did not know the difference between right and wrong. If the juvenile 13 and younger decline to make a statement under Miranda, then the parent is asked questions that will demonstrate that the juvenile has been taught and understands the difference. In the event that a parent is not available, under "loco parentis" the administrator is asked and can answer those questions.

In Michigan, I am not allowed to question (other than horsepower) a juvenile without the direct consent of the parent. We don't have a provision (that I'm aware of anyway) where a school administrator can act in the parent's stead. The only person that can stand in for the parents would be a court appointed attorney. I guess Michigan is a little hypersensitive about the person representing the child, that they are looking out for the child's best interest. As for the Principal questioning the child, I would not want to be around as what would be learned would taint my case. . . . .somehow, someway.

I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

It depends on the rules of each jurisidcition. As you can see some you cannot interview a child w/o parental consent, some you merely have to notify the parent of the interview beforehand and some the parent must be notified at some point before, after, whatever.

The presence of 2 officers while being interviewed by a school offical may cause the appearance of being detained or in custody. It may also present the appearance the school offical is acting as your agent. The reasonable appearance of being in custody as it applies to being required to advised someone of their Constitutional rights is the same as being in custody. The number of officers present can play a role in that. 2 Officers and one school offical present to interview a 13 yoa suspect. What sort of appearance would a reasonable child of similar expereince get?

You have the rest of your life to solve the problem, how long your life lasts depends on how well you do it. -Clint Smith

I have run into something like this before, but a little different. What it all comes down to is this. Was the kid free to get up and walk out the door, during questioning, and, was the principal acting as an agent of the police at the time of the questioning.

I think your prosecutor is a whimp for not fighting for you at your hearing. It all depends how your report was articulated, and how well you explained the situation and how it all fell together. The burden of proof is on the people, (you), to prove the statement was obtained while "Not in custody."

I disagree that the school officials can act as a parent in this situation. There is a lot more involved in them acting as a parent when it comes to police questioning. This is not really the case at all. They can in an emergency if the parents are not available, such as medical treatment of the minor, but not in a police questioning situation. This falls under the Parents Patricka Law. They cannot waive the juveniles rights, and therefore the parents must be present. I DO agree that the child was not incustody, but the real question here, is DID THE CHILD feel he was free to leave. This is what your prosecutor is getting at.

Miranda Warning and Waiver ONLY applies to custody situations, even with juveniles. You could have asked him all the questions you wanted to, while walking aback to the office, or by going outside and sitting on a bench in fromt of the school and talking. Then let him go home and charge him the next day, or later in the day. There is no way at that point that they could have argued he was not free to leave. I have tdone this hundreds of times, and never lost my case in court.

IF THERE WERE SEVERAL ADULTS, (DOESN'T NEED TO BE OFFICERS) SITTING IN THE ROOM DURING QUESTIONING, THE CHILD MIGHT NOT HAVE FELT HE WAS FREE TO LEAVE. If a police officer is present during the other adults questioning, he may have felt the same way, (not free to leave), even more so. The principal can talk to the child at any time. Miranda warning never applies to them, (Supreme Court has already ruled on this), no parents need to be present at all. This also applies to police officers, as long as you can show he was not incustody and free to leave, (Walking around the football field, sitting on a bench outside the school, sitting in the library, this type of thing). Do not arrest the kid at that time, even of you have PC, let him go and do it later. There is no way the Defense can argue custody, and no parents are required to just talk to the kid. Just don't be forceful or acusatory.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

We at the Miami-Dade Schools Police have a unique position in that we hold the same status as a school administrator, because we are employed by the school board, as we are allowed to do the same thing as they are. Having that ability we generally still apply Miranda in a situation like that because we like to cover all bases but it is not required to have a parent or lawyer present when we conduct an investigation reference a juvenile. We or the school must make an attempt to call the parent if the child is arrested so they will know they are in custody and what juvenile facility to come pick them up if they are not detained for 21 days.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

We at the Miami-Dade Schools Police have a unique position in that we hold the same status as a school administrator, because we are employed by the school board, as we are allowed to do the same thing as they are. Having that ability we generally still apply Miranda in a situation like that because we like to cover all bases but it is not required to have a parent or lawyer present when we conduct an investigation reference a juvenile. We or the school must make an attempt to call the parent if the child is arrested so they will know they are in custody and what juvenile facility to come pick them up if they are not detained for 21 days.

But are you sworn and certified Law Enforcement officers? If so, I would really like to know how you are getting aring a Supreme Court case that deals with these issues. Just courious.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

We at the Miami-Dade Schools Police have a unique position in that we hold the same status as a school administrator, because we are employed by the school board, as we are allowed to do the same thing as they are. Having that ability we generally still apply Miranda in a situation like that because we like to cover all bases but it is not required to have a parent or lawyer present when we conduct an investigation reference a juvenile. We or the school must make an attempt to call the parent if the child is arrested so they will know they are in custody and what juvenile facility to come pick them up if they are not detained for 21 days.

Yes SIr, all day long the word POLICE and Miranda should have answered that question. I don't make the rules. I just play by them!

But are you sworn and certified Law Enforcement officers? If so, I would really like to know how you are getting around a Supreme Court case that deals with these issues. Just courious.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

We at the Miami-Dade Schools Police have a unique position in that we hold the same status as a school administrator, because we are employed by the school board, as we are allowed to do the same thing as they are. Having that ability we generally still apply Miranda in a situation like that because we like to cover all bases but it is not required to have a parent or lawyer present when we conduct an investigation reference a juvenile. We or the school must make an attempt to call the parent if the child is arrested so they will know they are in custody and what juvenile facility to come pick them up if they are not detained for 21 days.

But are you sworn and certified Law Enforcement officers? If so, I would really like to know how you are getting around a Supreme Court case that deals with these issues. Just courious.

Yes SIr, all day long the word POLICE and Miranda should have answered that question. Jim, I always check an LEO's status before I question if they are LE! I don't make the rules. I just play by them!

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

We at the Miami-Dade Schools Police have a unique position in that we hold the same status as a school administrator, because we are employed by the school board, as we are allowed to do the same thing as they are. Having that ability we generally still apply Miranda in a situation like that because we like to cover all bases but it is not required to have a parent or lawyer present when we conduct an investigation reference a juvenile. We or the school must make an attempt to call the parent if the child is arrested so they will know they are in custody and what juvenile facility to come pick them up if they are not detained for 21 days.

But are you sworn and certified Law Enforcement officers? If so, I would really like to know how you are getting around a Supreme Court case that deals with these issues. Just courious.

Yes SIr, all day long the word POLICE and Miranda should have answered that question. Jim, I always check an LEO's status before I question if they are LE! I don't make the rules. I just play by them!

So do I. I was just wondering how a police officer employed by a school district can sidestep the Supreme Court, that's all.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

We at the Miami-Dade Schools Police have a unique position in that we hold the same status as a school administrator, because we are employed by the school board, as we are allowed to do the same thing as they are. Having that ability we generally still apply Miranda in a situation like that because we like to cover all bases but it is not required to have a parent or lawyer present when we conduct an investigation reference a juvenile. We or the school must make an attempt to call the parent if the child is arrested so they will know they are in custody and what juvenile facility to come pick them up if they are not detained for 21 days.

But are you sworn and certified Law Enforcement officers? If so, I would really like to know how you are getting around a Supreme Court case that deals with these issues. Just courious.

Yes SIr, all day long the word POLICE and Miranda should have answered that question. Jim, I always check an LEO's status before I question if they are LE! I don't make the rules. I just play by them!

So do I. I was just wondering how a police officer employed by a school district can sidestep the Supreme Court, that's all.

Apparently, those dang loopholes exist for us and thank GOD it does! Because there would be a hell of a lot of little gangsters getting away with all kind of crap! I have not lost a juvenile case to date, knock on wood which fortunately is always with me (My head), when I follow the rules and the tool box I and my department have been given. Be safe, and be well! My Brother!

I don't profess to be an expert at this, but I did teach Interview and Interrogation at the Federal and State level during my career. Part of my lesson plan was "Miranda" and I can tell you that it is one of the most misunderstood parts of the law for officers, prosecutors, and even some judges. What this officer did in the case of the juvenile was 100% legal and it is why the courts found it that way.

The D.A.'s attitude and the attitude today of most police departments is one of fear and is the main reason to the overreactions to "Miranda." Many departments take their cues from the local D.A.'s office on "Miranda" and this is dangerous. The unnecessary embellishments and repetitious warnings of "Miranda" are one of the biggest factors for good police officers to overcome these days. Because of this fear and or confusion, the police have generally been required to administer warnings beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court itself mandated. Due to their apprehension, prosecutors have imposed upon the police the obligation to give custodial suspects an additional warning to the four specifically required by the court.

The fifth and unnecessary embellishment has been phrased in various ways. Some read as follows: "If you wish to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will have the right to stop answering questions at any time until you talk with a lawyer." Nowhere in its opinion did the court prescribe such warning. (Also, why would any investigator tell a suspect that he can stop talking when the suspect has agreed to talk.) The DEA was the first U.S. Law Enforcement agency to remove the fifth warning from its "Miranda" card, and was further upheld by the court that the fifth warning was not necessary in U.S. v. Ignatius, Case #85-CR-10. Think for a moment how many times this fifth warning is given by police departments around the nation.

"Miranda" has four parts and will always be up held by the courts as long as given such way. We need to get away from sissy prosecutors who don't understand "Miranda" and want you to give them their case on a "Silver Platter."

1. You have the right to remain silent;

2. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law;

3. You have the right to have an attorney present;

4. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you, prior to any questioning, if you so desire.

Do you understand your rights? Get a signed waiver card/form if they wish to speak.

When you do the above, you will never loose a "confession" statement in court no matter what the D.A. tells you!

I don't think the problem here is whether or not Miranda was read to them. I think the problem here is that you have a 13 year old child that was interviewed as a suspect without a parent/guardian present to "watch out for their precious little darlings interest". In my department it was strictly verboten to interview a minor (anyone under 17) as a suspect without a parent or "guardian" present. The Miranda part had nothing to do with this, the parent or guardian HAD to be there and I think that was based on precedents set in the state courts (i.e. State Supreme Court. . . .not U.S. Supreme Court). With the principal in this specific case acting as an agent for the officer(s) and no parent/guardian there, nothing said by the child would have been admissable. Then again, that is in my state. . . .yours may be different.

I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

In regards to the questions posed, Under Virginia law, the SRO can be present and be "standing by" while the school admin questions a student as to their involvement in a violation of school policy or criminal conduct and that SRO can use their statements against them in the event that charges are brought forth. The SRO can use any written statements made by the student in a criminal investagation. In the case described, the school offical had detained the student, not the SRO or the other officer. The student was not free to go due to school policy, not a law enforcement hold. The school admin can by Va law stand "In Loco Parentis" during questioning by LE. Virginia law does not require notification of a parent prior to LE questioning a student or person under the age of 18, they are required to notify if an arrest is made. School officials are not bound to miranda. If there is no custody by LE, miranda does not apply. The officer and the SRO were correct in their actions.

In regards to the questions posed, Under Virginia law, the SRO can be present and be "standing by" while the school admin questions a student as to their involvement in a violation of school policy or criminal conduct and that SRO can use their statements against them in the event that charges are brought forth. The SRO can use any written statements made by the student in a criminal investagation. In the case described, the school offical had detained the student, not the SRO or the other officer. The student was not free to go due to school policy, not a law enforcement hold. The school admin can by Va law stand "In Loco Parentis" during questioning by LE. Virginia law does not require notification of a parent prior to LE questioning a student or person under the age of 18, they are required to notify if an arrest is made. School officials are not bound to miranda. If there is no custody by LE, miranda does not apply. The officer and the SRO were correct in their actions.

In regards to the questions posed, Under Virginia law, the SRO can be present and be "standing by" while the school admin questions a student as to their involvement in a violation of school policy or criminal conduct and that SRO can use their statements against them in the event that charges are brought forth. The SRO can use any written statements made by the student in a criminal investagation. In the case described, the school offical had detained the student, not the SRO or the other officer. The student was not free to go due to school policy, not a law enforcement hold. The school admin can by Va law stand "In Loco Parentis" during questioning by LE. Virginia law does not require notification of a parent prior to LE questioning a student or person under the age of 18, they are required to notify if an arrest is made. School officials are not bound to miranda. If there is no custody by LE, miranda does not apply. The officer and the SRO were correct in their actions.

Bump our law is the same!

BUMP - SAME

I don't necessarily mind having a parent present as long as they don't interject with an onslaught of mindless hearsay. Having said that, I seldom have a parent present for that very reason. I am not required to have a parent present and I am only required to contact the parent if I make an arrest.

In the state of Texas school administrators are empowered to act in "loco parentis" which means they have the right to question the juvenile as they are acting as the parent while the juvenile is at school. As long as the police are not directing the questioning we can use whatever statements are acquired. We are allowed to be present to witness the statement.

Ditto!

We at the Miami-Dade Schools Police have a unique position in that we hold the same status as a school administrator, because we are employed by the school board, as we are allowed to do the same thing as they are. Having that ability we generally still apply Miranda in a situation like that because we like to cover all bases but it is not required to have a parent or lawyer present when we conduct an investigation reference a juvenile. We or the school must make an attempt to call the parent if the child is arrested so they will know they are in custody and what juvenile facility to come pick them up if they are not detained for 21 days.

But are you sworn and certified Law Enforcement officers? If so, I would really like to know how you are getting around a Supreme Court case that deals with these issues. Just courious.

Yes SIr, all day long the word POLICE and Miranda should have answered that question. Jim, I always check an LEO's status before I question if they are LE! I don't make the rules. I just play by them!

So do I. I was just wondering how a police officer employed by a school district can sidestep the Supreme Court, that's all.

School District Police are not sidestepping the Supreme court. In New Jersey vs. T.L.O. covers many of the constitutional law that you are referring to. T.L.O. gave school administrators a slightly less standard to operate than peace officers due to the fact that they are required to maintain the order and safety of their campus. While peace officers require probable cause they only need reasonable suspicion. Since school administrators are not trained in conducting searches they ask for the assistance of their SRO. T.L.O. also recognizes that the school administrator is required to investigate incidents that cause disruption on their campus they do not have to follow the rules of Miranda vs Arizona because they are not police officers.

As for the police being present during questioning the case of K.K a Child v. State of Florida provides case law regarding SRO's acting in support role to campus administrators. When an administrator is questioning a child the police officer is only acting as a witness and does not say anything nor do we direct the questioning. This has been tested in the courts for a very long time already. As a sworn law enforcement officer that works in a school district environment we go through extensive training that covers juvenile law. We work with juveniles all day long and it helps to know all the rules of the case law in order to ensure the safety of the campus and get quality convictions in the court. Hope that answers your question.

I don't think the problem here is whether or not Miranda was read to them. I think the problem here is that you have a 13 year old child that was interviewed as a suspect without a parent/guardian present to "watch out for their precious little darlings interest". In my department it was strictly verboten to interview a minor (anyone under 17) as a suspect without a parent or "guardian" present. The Miranda part had nothing to do with this, the parent or guardian HAD to be there and I think that was based on precedents set in the state courts (i.e. State Supreme Court. . . .not U.S. Supreme Court). With the principal in this specific case acting as an agent for the officer(s) and no parent/guardian there, nothing said by the child would have been admissable. Then again, that is in my state. . . .yours may be different.

Without assuming anything, unless otherwise stated, the school principal is not an law enforcement officer. I agree that any law enforcement official has to have a parent or guardian present if he desires to interview a juvenile. At no time in this case, according to the officer's testimony did he question the juvenile. Obviously, if the law of the state of Virginia states that a school principal is an extension of the police, then Miranda would apply.

I don't think the problem here is whether or not Miranda was read to them. I think the problem here is that you have a 13 year old child that was interviewed as a suspect without a parent/guardian present to "watch out for their precious little darlings interest". In my department it was strictly verboten to interview a minor (anyone under 17) as a suspect without a parent or "guardian" present. The Miranda part had nothing to do with this, the parent or guardian HAD to be there and I think that was based on precedents set in the state courts (i.e. State Supreme Court. . . .not U.S. Supreme Court). With the principal in this specific case acting as an agent for the officer(s) and no parent/guardian there, nothing said by the child would have been admissable. Then again, that is in my state. . . .yours may be different.

Without assuming anything, unless otherwise stated, the school principal is not an law enforcement officer. I agree that any law enforcement official has to have a parent or guardian present if he desires to interview a juvenile. At no time in this case, according to the officer's testimony did he question the juvenile. Obviously, if the law of the state of Virginia states that a school principal is an extension of the police, then Miranda would apply.

You know, that argument (in general) was used by our department a number of years ago to jam up my "fellow" officers. In situations where they knew they would not get a criminal conviction without the officer's "confession", they would stack the deck against them. The IA would come about and the officer is "questioned" by a superior officer with Garrity being read so now the officer is required to answer any and all questions put to them (or face further discipline up to and including termination) as the department now cannot bring those statements into court. HOWEVER, also in the room was an investigator from the local PD who was "taking notes" TO USE AGAINST the officer in the criminal case, i.e. the so sought after confession. The PD investigator was NOT asking, nor directing the questions. But it was obvious that there had been a discussion prior to the interview what questions needed to be asked.

Obviously our association took the department to task when it was learned that the local courts didn't care that the "confession" was coerced but it eventually got worked out and a stop was finally put that practice. What is the difference here? You have a juvenile that is sitting in front of 2 adults that have an agenda (don't EVEN tell me they don't). While the principal may/may not have enough respect of the juvenile to bring enough pressure on the juvenile to get them to cooperate, the principal is still acting as the agent of the criminal justice system in this scenario.

I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

I don't think the problem here is whether or not Miranda was read to them. I think the problem here is that you have a 13 year old child that was interviewed as a suspect without a parent/guardian present to "watch out for their precious little darlings interest". In my department it was strictly verboten to interview a minor (anyone under 17) as a suspect without a parent or "guardian" present. The Miranda part had nothing to do with this, the parent or guardian HAD to be there and I think that was based on precedents set in the state courts (i.e. State Supreme Court. . . .not U.S. Supreme Court). With the principal in this specific case acting as an agent for the officer(s) and no parent/guardian there, nothing said by the child would have been admissable. Then again, that is in my state. . . .yours may be different.

Without assuming anything, unless otherwise stated, the school principal is not an law enforcement officer. I agree that any law enforcement official has to have a parent or guardian present if he desires to interview a juvenile. At no time in this case, according to the officer's testimony did he question the juvenile. Obviously, if the law of the state of Virginia states that a school principal is an extension of the police, then Miranda would apply.

You know, that argument (in general) was used by our department a number of years ago to jam up my "fellow" officers. In situations where they knew they would not get a criminal conviction without the officer's "confession", they would stack the deck against them. The IA would come about and the officer is "questioned" by a superior officer with Garrity being read so now the officer is required to answer any and all questions put to them (or face further discipline up to and including termination) as the department now cannot bring those statements into court. HOWEVER, also in the room was an investigator from the local PD who was "taking notes" TO USE AGAINST the officer in the criminal case, i.e. the so sought after confession. The PD investigator was NOT asking, nor directing the questions. But it was obvious that there had been a discussion prior to the interview what questions needed to be asked.

Obviously our association took the department to task when it was learned that the local courts didn't care that the "confession" was coerced but it eventually got worked out and a stop was finally put that practice. What is the difference here? You have a juvenile that is sitting in front of 2 adults that have an agenda (don't EVEN tell me they don't). While the principal may/may not have enough respect of the juvenile to bring enough pressure on the juvenile to get them to cooperate, the principal is still acting as the agent of the criminal justice system in this scenario.

Any information from a sworn officer under Garrity can never be used in a criminal investigation. Any officer who speaks freely after Garrity is invoked with a criminal investigator in the room is a fool. The risk between a job and prison is pretty big in my opinion.

One thing not discussed in this situation is the location of the Principal's interview :The kid is brought to the ante-room, a sort of small lobby in front of the principal’s office. The lobby serves three offices, including those of the principal and SRO. There is a table and a few chairs in that lobby. The entrance of the lobby is opened to the main hallway. There are no doors.

That seems like a non-interrogation room to me which probably helps with case.

Hello my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.

"It's not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk." Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy -December 4, 2000